Rishy the standard is lack of a belief in a god. It has no set purpose, we're not trying to get to an imaginary heaven or escape reality or anything or raise money to build a new mega church or anything.

Its strengths over christianity or other organized god religions should be pretty obvious. It doesn't make a liar out of anybody being straight forward and factual, there's no twisted storyline to remember requiring convoluted and senseless explanations, and so it doesn't warp one's perceptions of yourself, the world and other people.

And we have already established, over and over and over again, that expressing that someone is warped, wrong, stupid, ignorant, loves ignorance or (insert your own negative term) only causes hurt feelings and does nothing to further the understanding of each other.

Knock it off!

The truth is quite simple. It doesn't matter if there is a higher power or not. Be a decent flippin human being and everything else is just frosting.

Atheists don't believe in any god.Purpose ? As there is no Atheist Church, there's no purpose.Only religious people have purposes : shoving their believes down our throats. Reminding us we're sinners. Bragging self-righteousness.

Atheism is a false term made to give some credit towards theists beliefs where none is warranted. The simple gist of it all is that there are people who don't accept the claims of theists myths and superstitions, whatever they may be. That's about it.

haha i don't think there are any standards or conventions for "atheisim". not believing in the Christian god doesn't really make someone an atheist. there isn't a label for everything, unfortunately. i believe in some grand spiritual force somewhere, but it doesn't fit into any of the popular mythologies perpetuated by Man.

Atheism is the ABSENCE of belief, so it's impossible to go into any detail about the nature of it, because there's no detail to explain. It is not a system.

Atheists don't depend on atheism to determine how they live.

Religionists find this hard to accept, because they use religion to guide their decisions in life. They can't conceive of someone independent-minded enough to make decisions without something to lean on.

A minority of atheists are closed-minded - most are logical, and would change their mind about the existence of God in a second, if unequivocal proof was found.

Some atheists believe a deity does not exist (strong atheism), which is a positive assertion. Some don't believe the assertion that a deity exists (weak atheism) which is not a positive assertion but a lack of belief. Onus probandi (burden of proof) lies with anyone making a positive assertion. So burden of proof lies with theists and strong atheists.

However because of the nature of the strong atheists assertion, i.e. trying to prove a negative, the most a strong atheist can reasonably do is tentatively assert that the existence of a deity is improbable. Well known atheists such as Richard Dawkins make this assertion. Such atheists do not assert it is impossible and do not (cannot) assert that a deity does not exist.

There is no evidence which categorically proves the existence of a deity. There is no evidence which categorically proves a deity is improbable. The former assertion is based on the interpretation of certain ancient texts, the Bible for example, subjective, mystical and religious experiences including divine revelation, socio-cultural, political and psychological factors etc.

The latter assertion is based on the interpretation of certain empirical data, those surrounding evolutionary facts for example, socio-political, rhetorical, cultural and psychological arguments etc. Regardless of how confidently stated either may be, they remain unproven assertions.

Some atheists including a few at Hubpages display a marked dislike of theism and theists and their position would be better described as anti-theism in my opinion.

Personally I wonder what the logical conclusion of anti-theism is, and how far its proponents would go. Ban religious belief? Criminalise theism? Label everyone who believes in a deity "delusional" and try to "re-educate" them? (already happening?) Label them as "sick" and try to "cure" them?

In fact do we really need "religionists" at all? Wouldn't the world be a safer, saner place without them? Wouldn't getting rid of them be in the best interests of humanity, society? Surely that would be a good thing? No more religious wars, no more religious terrorism. Surely the end justifies the means. But what end. Maybe a final solution? Certainly over dramatic I know, but not without precedent in the history of this small planet, and such things always start with ridicule and brow beating, not dissimilar to the "enlightenment" certain people already engage in online.

And how silly would it be if a dislike of authoritarian belief systems leads to punitive measures against those who subscribe to authoritarian belief systems? Do people really not see the irony in that?

By espousing anti-theist sentiments some think they are making a stand for a non-authoritarian and free-thinking world. I think the opposite is true.

I understand the frustrations of coming up against religious intolerance and bigotry, but surely the way to counter that lies in something other than more intolerance and bigotry. A horse with stripes is not a zebra, it's still just a horse. Likewise anti-theist bigotry and intolerance is no different to religious bigotry and intolerance. Doesn't matter what you call it or what you try to paint it as, it's exactly the same thing.

It is all so much simpler than this. Religions make threats. I for one do not respond to threats.Religion makes claims that are not only untrue, but totally ridiculous, and then force feed them with "god said"I need no science degree, or to be very clever to see that a threatening sky fairy is more than a bit unlikely. Common sense.

is a massive oversimplification of the worlds theistic belief systems. At the same level of simplicity a theist could state "religions give hope". Both these statements have an element of truth, but both are also much too shallow to reveal the whole picture.

Thousands of years of philosophy, theology, history, cultural tradition, art and basic human nature can't be concentrated into a populist sound bite that suits a particular world view. In my humble opinion that's just too superficial an approach.

Interesting post. You assert a couple of things that I don't see any logic for however. Just because people choose to speak out against the problems of religion just not lead to a conclusion that soon we'll be rounding them up and sending them to concentration camps. Society generally moves forward, not backwards. It's a leap to suggest such a thing, a pretty argument, but a leap in logic.

Atheists are pretty reasonable people. The knowledge that you cannot legislate or regulate peoples' thoughts and beliefs isn't something that's going to be lost. Besides, making martyrs of them is counter-productive, as China has effectively shown.

As many of us are. We often know your religion better than you do, but without the constraints of not wanting to find out we are wrong and our beliefs ridiculous we can live a normal life understanding each new thing that comes along without having to be dragged screaming into the next century and without the need to change "context" in our beliefs to accommodate them for starters! .

I think some anti-theists are bigotted and intolerant. Why? Because the most common definition of bigot is: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices.

Or (for comparison)

a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

I see theists and anti-theists on this forum who display these characteristics. However it seems to be more common for anti-theists to label theists as bigoted whilst engaging in exactly the same behaviour, then citing the theist's bigotry as justification for their own bigotry while at the same time condemning all forms of bigotry. All too silly really.

I am assuming that you don't do anything, However that assumption is accurate, ain't it? Once again there are no Tamil Tigers here, a better question would be how many bad guys have I killed. If I had killed only one that would be more than you!

Whatever way theism and anti-theism are dressed up, they are essentially opinions. And bigotry is about obstinate, irrational animosity towards opinion that differs from our own.

An example is an anti-theist asking a theist what he does to alleviate suffering. Upon hearing that the theist performs charitable acts and does as much as he can within the scope of his own life to alleviate suffering, the anti-theist continues to demonstrate animosity simply because he objects to the theist being a theist. Not because he objects to the theists actions or behaviour with regard to the question asked, but the fact that he thinks differently, has a different opinion about it.

That's exactly the point when anti-theism becomes bigoted. That is obstinate, irrational animosity towards opinion that differs from our own. That is bigotry.

Whether you have personally displayed such behaviour I couldn't honestly say without looking at your previous posts. Something I've neither the time nor the inclination to do. You know yourself whether you have. If so your behaviour constitutes bigotry. If not, then it doesn't.

Either way, taking a zero tolerance approach in the name of promoting tolerance makes as much sense as fighting the war to end all wars. The latter simply bred more wars, the former will simply breed more intolerance.

I'm not sure that I follow your example, since it holds no real world value, it's not something that has happened.

Anti-theists would not ask what a theist does to alleviate suffering and then do the opposite. Nor would a theist suddenly go out and do some more 'alleviating' to spite the theist.

An Anti Theist would ask what God does to alleviate suffering, the theist would then stutter something about charity and then go to church/sell some diamonds/suicide bomb a mosque/molest an irish boy (selete as applicable)

Ok, maybe that was a little harsh, but my point standing, you can only give examples where they fit, and yours didn't.

If I was suggesting that speaking out against the problems of religion will definitely lead to those things I mentiond, then you'd be right to call me on the logic of that statement. Such a statement would be a logical fallacy of the "slippery slope" variety where a small step is fallaciously said to lead to a much more significant consequence.

So I'm relieved to say I merely claimed it was a possibility, not an inevitability. Quoting myself, I posed it in the form of a question "I wonder what the logical conclusion of anti-theism is, and how far its proponents would go" and pointed out that their is a precedent by saying "Certainly over dramatic I know, but not without precedent in the history of this small planet". So I think I'm okay in terms of the "leap of logic" you mention as I'm not making an assertion, merely pondering the possibility.

To illustrate, here's a comment by (Q) from another thread:"If the members of the LDS think and believe as you do, then there is good reason to rid the world of this dangerous cult as it will clearly do great harm to mankind." The question stands, What is the logical conclusion of such sentiment?

I am interested in a comment of yours "Atheists are pretty reasonable people". That is an assertion, and quite a huge generalisation which would be falsified by the existence of a single unreasonable atheist.

If you are asserting there is not a single unreasonable atheist in existence, then your argument is unsound because that premise is false. If you accept that at least one unreasonable atheist exists, then your argument is logically invalid because the conclusion does not follow from the premises.

The third option (the one I most suspect to be true) is that you just forgot to use a quantifier such as "[many] atheists are pretty reasonable".

Atheism has an important purpose. Everything on earth depends upon it's opposite in order to thrive. Atheists and Theists depend upon each other. The louder the Theist are; the louder the Atheists become. There would not have been any martyrs in the first and second century without the Romans and their lions. The Romans finally decided that Christians could not be extinguished and this is why the Emperor decided to create a universal church that he could control. Christianity might have died in the first century had it not been for its opposition.

Ya caught me being lazy minded. I do know the difference between Atheists and Anti Theists. I apologize if this oversight of mine was offensive. I also didn't intend to be offensive toward Anti-Theists. Just stating an observation. We all need each other or we would all think the same and that would be boring.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I made this post earlier and none of the Atheist nor Theist has wanted to comment.... Does this statement not cause food for thought in either camp ????

I have listened to religionists justify their beliefs constantly and once you have decided to believe - you continue to do so. A dog shitting in the street is proof positive that god exists, and this is just another version of "I appreciate atheists because they strengthen my faith."

Basically what you said makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, but if you want to take the millions of painful deaths involved in the spread of god's perfect word as being something to be thankful for and tell me I have a purpose which is to perpetuate your ridiculous beliefs and am therefore invalid - which is what you said. Well......

I don't really have much of a response other than to respond by saying thank you for proving my decision not to believe is a valid one and there is no invisible super being.

I don't know why any of the theists did not respond.No food for thought being caused here. Nonsensical justification of your belief in an invisible super being seems par for the course.

I mean - look at Valerie's last response. She is quite prepared to fool herself into thinking that her chosen church (Catholic) has not spent the last 1800 years desperately trying to wipe out atheism. Never happened.

I dont do religion or god full stop. Not credible, no evidence, many unsupported "truths"Atheist? I don't know how to define atheism either.I do not believe in fairies in the sky who kill people, surely one would not need to be any more than just sane not to believe the same wouldn't they?

That is is sweetie pie. Atheists do not believe in a god. It is a lack of belief - not a belief. Is that too difficult to understand? shall make more simple.... lose teh grammar and punctuation....wud help?

I must have missed that. Not as omniscient as I thought. But that is OK - I explain everything in my nifty 200,000 page hand book written in an obscure dead language. It may look like gibberish, but you are free to translate it to say whatever you like.....

I think atheism has an unexpected consequence. As long as the atheist one is talking doesn't just trot out the same old tired lines, they can challenge those with a belief system to really examine what they believe and encourage them to formulate a rationale logical argument for why they believe. Too many Christians I have known couldn't argue themselves out of a paper bag.

Trotting out the "you really made my belief more solid," line is just extremely funny to us atheists. Especially as you are basing it on nothing other than a desire to be more important than you really are.

In fact - it makes us pity you even more and increases our desire to see a world free from irrational beliefs. I will now spend more time teaching people that their beliefs are dangerous garbage.

Not a relapsed Catholic are you? Forced to go to Sunday school perhaps? Your cat died and someone said it was God's will? Your mum was ripped off by a TV Evangelist? You got pissed one night on the town and someone threw a Christian tract at you? Or is it that you once believed in Noah's Ark until some nasty children laughed at you?

You clearly believe you have reached some nirvana of enlightenment and now that you have found atheism, it's pay back time.

Not at all. It is behavior such as you are displaying right now that convinced me you guys are full of s***.

But I love it when believers get upset when I turn the tables on them. All that does is convince me you do not even know what you are saying half the time.

Not sure why you are unable to accept that sometimes people make a rational decision based on the evidence. In this case, the lack of evidence combined with this type of behavior from people who do believe.

Why are you interested? I started drinking and smoking when I was 13 years old. My parents smoked, the priest at the church boarding school I went to was a heavy drinker and smoker - so I figured it was OK. Not sure the words "logical, rational, educated and free thinking" apply to a 13 year old.

As I got older - I discovered it was not good for you and have since quit smoking and cut down on drinking in an effort to lose the weight I put on while quitting smoking.

But - thank you for reminding me once again why I despise your holier than thou religion.

You are right - you cannot trust your parents or the church to teach you right from wrong - you have to learn it for yourself and deal with it yourself when you want to make a change.

No sweetiepie. Never been a Catholic. Sorry - that is the problem with never listening to anyone and just spouting your holier than thou hatred. Sorry your god has been proven to be a figment of your imagination. You must be very angry. Don't take it out on me though. Is that what Jeebus would have done?

Yes - that is one of my major issues with your irrational belief system. The level of self deception is quite astounding. Of course - the trouble starts when you expect other people to share the deception with you.

Excellent argument by the way. Nothing childish here. You will soon have worked your way out of that paper bag. In fact - I am slightly more convinced there is an invisible super being in the sky than I was when you started. Admittedly - this is still not very convinced.

He started the Iraq war in the name of America and it's god.The war has killed about 1 million people so far, mostly blown to bits along with their whole infrastructure, then Bush naturally gave the contract to rebuild that same infrastructure to his bent mates who spent billions, cut corners with the result that nothing works at all well. Watered down concrete, undersized reinforcement in walls and foundation mesh every stinking method to siphon off more profit.

Actually having a belief system or believing that there is something more does not make me feel more important than I am. Rather, for me anyway, it is an acknowledgment of my insignificance.

I think that I have a soul (you can call it whatever you want) and that every other living thing has one too. I believe that these 'souls' are part of some greater whole and connect us to everything around us.

Believing that there is something beyond human consciousness does not necessarily equal believing in human superiority.

Good for you. But - there is a huge difference between having a belief system that there is "something more" and having a belief system that includes a god - with rules and "morals" to follow.

I take it you just believe there is "something more" and none of the other stuff.

I believe we are part of something larger than ourselves also. Any fool can see that - but to give it a name and build churches to it? And then start telling people what it wants? That is where you lose me.

Trouble is - most peopel do not seem happy with saying there is "something more" and need to go teh step further. I am glad you do not do that.

Of course - that means it makes absolutely no differnece that you believe there is "something more" as it does not impact on you me or anyone else and might as well not exist. In fact - I am not even sure why you mentioned it.

Why did you mention it if there are no instructions, rules or anything?

I am not a fan of churches. To me, they are like clubs where you either belong or you don't. I don't belong, no biggie.

A demon, overhearing the Good News Christ was teaching became worried for hell. He ran to Satan and told him that there was some guy telling people that all they had to do to get into heaven was love each other and be good people. Satan thought about it for a minute and then laughed, saying "this is good news, hell's going to be better off than ever... all I have to do is institutionalize it!"

Three quick points here (assuming I can ever do anything in less than 500 words):1. I am a human being, a talking animal with a really big brain and super spiffy fingers. Its a great body and works really well but I don't KNOW anything, I don't carry around the answers to the meaning off life... I leave that to my dog... and I am far more likely to be wrong than right. So I can't very well go around pushing my beliefs on someone else. I can argue like crazy but it wouldn't do any good... and what if I led someone into that huge pit over there because I was so buy worrying about his cataracts that I couldn't see my own blindness?

2. God is a really great word, it's much easier to say than "something beyond myself" for one thing, it gives you a tiny little three letter word to focus on. The problem is, again for me, that when you focus to hard on the word you miss the point completely.

So, I believe in a God of sorts. MY God (and I am using this very loosely) is not some guy sitting in judgment, waiting for me to screw up and hoping that I run around judging everyone else or telling them all my rules.

3. There are rules. Maybe they needed to be written down, maybe not. I'm fairly certain that every decent person could have figured them out all by themselves though. I don't know that they will save your soul, I don't know that a soul needs to be saved. At any rate the 'rules' are pretty simple; be good to each other, try your best to be a good person, don't attack, harm, vilify, lie about, other people, fight for things that are wrong and live the best life you can and learn as much as you can. When I try to follow these rules of basic human decency, I am happier.

I live in a world that is so absolutely beautiful in its intricacy and interconnectedness that being a good person seems like the best way to celebrate my connection to it.

I see no problem with atheism in that the word simply means that a person does not believe in a deity. Being an atheist does not necessarily mean that a person does not have a set of moral beliefs regarding his/her conduct.

I can't quite agree with this post. The problem for me is that people with soft beliefs like this tend to unknowingly give cover for the people with the hard beliefs. A god is not a 'something out there', it's a personalized deity, not an unknown thing. You have defined the source of the magic of life as a sentient being. In doing so you have claimed what cannot possibly be known.

Your rules, besides reminding me of Jerry Springer , you don't mention where they come from. What makes them rules? Is there a supreme reward or punishment associated with them?

Yeah I agree. I have no problem with people who believe in some kind of something special let us say in the world. I have no problem with pagans because their beliefs are harmless and nonjudgmental of others. I have no problems with buddhists, etc.

I just feel that people who make up gods and assign human characteristics to them, proclaim their history and set forth their rules for mankind, people in short who claim to 'know god', I believe these people are dangerous to society.

As soon as somebody says "my god is _____" (fill in the blank)they have gone astray, no matter what their intent.

For me, I can handle the "my god is ______" but I can't handle the "My god says ________"

I once got into a huge argument with someone over "the dominion over Earth" issue. My friend thought that was a great excuse for shooting ground squirrels, because we are after all superior in Gods eyes. I felt that if God wanted fewer ground squirrels, he would deal with it on HIS own (my friends god is a Man... he explicitly stated this) and we had no business shooting the cute little guys....

Now, this example of using "my god says ______" is a deep root of evil in the wrong hands. Using God as a means to an end is plain WRONG.

Atheism is the conviction that deity, in any of the various definitions proposed for this concept by various spiritual traditions, does not exist.

Atheism is a state of mind. It does not have and does not need to have a purpose.

There are atheists who believe that since this life is all they have and life is precious, they must try to make it the best sort of life for the largest number of people they possibly can. There are atheists who believe life is meaningless, so the thing to do is to get the maximum personal pleasure while they can.

Likewise, there are believers of various religions, and people of no fixed religion but on various spiritual paths, who believe that their spirituality must also be expressed in action to help relieve suffering and oppression. There are other believers who believe physical life is secondary to the promised afterlife, so the thing to do is to focus on "saving" themselves and others.

In both cases, I refer to two ends of a spectrum. However, when people of any and no beliefs, who are near the "action" end of the spectrum come together to fight for a better world, true change can happen here and now.

'Atheism is a state of mind. It does not have and does not need to have a purpose...' I think its an old concept... Since we already have some Atheist movements & personalities like Richard Dawkins, harris & hitchens are either trying to establish the purpose of Atheism or already have given some directions.

Ah but those aren't claimed to have come from god. we can embrace those movements or not as we freely choose and still retain our status as atheists. The vast majority of atheists are people who will never bother mentioning it to anyone save perhaps to their closest friends and family and that is fine. There is no purpose to it, it just is.

It is very simply a lack of belief in the existance of a god. There's no mission statement involved.

Sweetie pie - you cannot keep using that argument. It makes no sense. I know, O know - it is hard having to justify your ridiculous beliefs and this is a good way of distracting from the fat that you believe something that does not exist - but it will not change the fact that the burden of proof is yours.

Sorry sweetie pie. This is how it works. You make the assertion - you provide the evidence. It must be very frustrating for you.

Sure, why bother with proof of anything? Let's just open up the doors to our imaginations and pretend all sorts of things exist that are apparently swirling around us in some other realm, that can end the universe with the flick of a wrist.

Of course, those how prefer some evidence in our world are the same people who brought computers, internet connections and these forums to those who prefer to imagine existing the bogeyman and all the hobgoblins that go bump in the night.

And you do not see the difference between believing something is there with no proof and not believing something is there with no proof?

Like all religionists - you prefer to bring my decision making down to your level - and that is offensive.

Which is why a blind belief in god, combined with aggressively attacking anyone who does not believe the same as you do will always cause conflicts.

Always has done and always will do.

I mean - look at sweetie pie number 65 - shouting that lack of proof is not proof.

And he is lying because I would like to bet he does not apply that rule to any other area of his life. But - because he is trying to justify a ridiculous belief - he is forced into lying and attacking me because I will not believe.

But - when I hand him an empty rucksack and tell him it will work as a parachute - I bet he asks for proof before jumping out of an airplane at 20,000 feet.

Double standards - yet another reason for constant conflict caused by a belief in a god. Too bad really. pity none of the believers understand this.

Oh I see. So - who are you trying to convince of its existence? I mean - if you are not trying to convince any one of anything - why bother telling any one? Are we seeing which came first yet? Do you think I would bother telling you your invisible friend does not exist if you did not already tell me that he is there?

I never asked. You told me without me asking. You have even written hubs about it. No one asked you to write those - and of course I looked. I always look at people's profile and read their hubs - or some of them - before interacting with them. You have a bunch of hubs about your ridiculous beliefs and on your profile page it says, "God is Everything... ... Ask God..."

But - why the need to lie about it? I mean - I genuinely never asked you and you are obviously here to promote your beliefs. And you feel the need to lie. I don't get it - you are the one making a claim. You are the one writing about your beliefs. You are the one telling me what you believe.

Yes, we know you do. You have no evidence for your "supreme deity" other than your own blind faith. Yeah, we get that Mikel. So what? The burden of proof still resides with you to demonstrate your god exists. You don't have to do such a thing of course, but that still doesn't preclude the fact that your faith in such a deity is delusional.

show me the proof that God does not exist. Until then, we have to admit one to the other that either of us may be correct. There is a 50/50 chance that a God exists and a same 50/50 chance that a God does not exist.

Again....I really get tired of having the exact same conversation with every single person that thinks they are saying something new and different...You really should read the posts your comrades in arms have already written...but ok, I'll say it all over again cause your lazy and wont read my hubs that say it all there as well.....

Pannie, Mark, Q, Qwark and a host of others have said...

"Only if you think there's a fifty/fifty chance that the flying spaghetti monster exists.

Additionally most of your gods have been so well defined that as those definitions are shown to be in error, the chances of that specific god being real grow slimmer."

My response this, 81736401387450816948a6472365748213087520837640-th time is the same as all the other 932865291657234592659463853296579326372063794 times I have already said it, but again since your sooo lazy and I'm not...

Here goes, AGAIN.

100% equals all the possibilities in existence.

1-50 chances that A god of some-kind exists

51-100 that NO god of any-kind exists.

there is a 1 in infinity chance that any one description of an existent God be exactly 100% accurate.

there is a 1 in infinity chance that any description of a non-existent God be exaxtly 100% accurate.

which makes it and leaves it at a 50/50 proposition.

again that 'the spaghetti monster' in infinite detailed precision is the exact description of God, 1 in infinity.

Why would i want to read your hubs? I don't agree with what you've been saying here, why then would i go looking for more that I disagree with.

You failed to correctly read what I wrote. For example, the chances that Russell's Teapot exists is less than 50/50 because we are exploring the universe and thus far there has been no sighting. It is not where it is said to be, therefore, there is much less than a 50/50 chance that it exists.

Your church members are very Faithful and spout your un founded/unproven doctrine well, and accurately. They resort to name calling and violence just like their counterparts the Christians, Muslims and Jews.

The story is one of my life experiences. I was a prison Guard for about 5-6 years. One of the millions of fights I saw and over heard is where this story comes from. It wasn't a once in a lifetime occurance.

The verbal violence I have personally suffered is a much lesser violence, but it is violence none the less...i.e. being called a 'Drongo' by Earnie.

and the fact that only 'some other' member of a church does it, does not change the fact that a church member did it. Even if it is a member of a church the member doesn't think is a church.

Well get real mikel, five prisoners beat up another prisoner because he was probably preaching about god to them. I don't condone it, but these five thugs weren't motivated by atheism to violently persecute a christian, they were five thugs who may very well have had quite violent pasts. It doesn't quite carry the same weight when an obviously violent offender commits an act of violence against a fellow inmate.

But you choose to take this act and use it as justification for accusing atheists of having violent intentions towards believers?

Come on, man, be reasonable.

Now maybe we can find some common ground. You said earlier something about actually agreeing with me on a certain point, and that it was one of your life's goals. Tell me more about that and let's stop quibbling over the definition of atheist. Since you're clearing not gonna admit you were wrong about it, I let you off the hook. Tell me about the other thing, that'd be more interesting.

Some people BELIEVE that there is nothing, fine.Others BELIEVE that there is, fine also.

I do NOT believe that the rucksack will work as a parachute, not because of blind faith but in the fact that the rucksack is tangible. I can see it, touch it, turn it inside out and come to the conclusion that it won't work.There is no FAITH to it.

I don't KNOW if there is an all powerful being, I wouldn't even be willing to argue that there is or isn't, but I FEEL that there is something beyond me. That is faith.

Personal belief and faith does not mean that that someone needs to go and convert others in order to validate themselves. A belief in something, even if that belief is that there is nothing, is better than no belief at all. Having beliefs means that at least you have thought about life, which is a good thing.

I also stated earlier that God is, in my opinion, a convenient word (ie label) to put on something that is virtually impossible to define. If you focus on the word, and the characteristics that the word implies, you miss the bigger picture.

Personally, if God, or whatever you want to call the something bigger, is a PERSON, then I am going to spend the rest of my life being very frightened!

I don't like the word God Pandora..... I like the words "something beyond me", but God is shorter!

Giving IT a word, or even a definition, is dangerous and slippery territory in my book, and as a woman I can get very upset when someone insists that IT is a HIM and then proceeds to judge me because I am not a HIM, but that's an entirely different discussion.

In casual conversation the word God, if agreed on by both parties for the purpose of carrying on the conversation without having to resort to saying something long and convoluted like "That whatever that I can't possibly comprehend but makes everything work right and keeps my heart beating", can be a useful one. But if we must agree that this GOD is a physical, definable entity in order to carry on anything resembling a rational conversation.... then it is a useless word.

You say "I don't know what there is - or even if there is anything after I am dead. " Well instead of be offensive to everyone, why don't you put your money where you mouth is and go and find out. Then come back and tell us what you found. But it's no use saying that you don't know what there is if you are just going to sit around on your arse.

Do you think Columbus would be remembered if he just said "I don't know what's out there on that ocean, but I can't be bothered to go and look. Instead I'll just be rude to everyone else who does."

Sweetie pie - if you were looking I would have all the respect in the world. Sadly - veiled suggestions that I kill myself to find out what the afterlife holds are not convincing me of anything other than that you are another hate-mongering religionist with all the answers.

Let me know when you get back.

I am genuinely grateful to people like you and Valerie though. It is people like you who persuaded me to look a little deeper and seek the truth. Thank you.

You must have some faith that there is no god. The lack of evidence, of anything tangible gives you this faith. All I am saying is that that lack of evidence doesn't necessarily mean that there isn't a god, no more than it means there is.

The point being that it doesn't really matter if there is or there isn't a god.

And thanks for being willing to fight for me. Fortunately I'm not having too many issues with persecution lately! I just wander around with the "heck if I know attitude" and don't worry too much about the fall-out!

Believe it or not I'd even fight for Mikel's right if it ever came to it.

You can't legislate peoples' minds and hearts. I don't give a hoot what other people believe in, I just want the power of religion in society to be greatly diminished from what it is now. I want it put in its proper place. I want the suffering it causes to end.

Until we bring it into the light for all to see what it really is, that won't happen.

That is completely true. A group of religious doctrines should not be used to do harm to others. Unfortunately people will almost always find a way to do harm. Our instinctual need for "the EVIL other" will always take precedence over common sense.

They wont admit bcoz either they r scared of attacks from different religious groups or they r ashamed to face their religious friends nd family members since atheism is considered a sin. However, similar situations were dealt by early Islamic & Christian preachers who chose not to preach immediately into public. Rather they chose to talk with their close friends and relatives first.

"Atheism isn't a set of beliefs; therefore it is not a religion." - It may not be a religion but a set of believes can be easily assigned to it:

"All children are born Atheists; they have no idea of God."-Baron d'Holbach

1. Atheism is the position which claims that there are no deities. it is the rejection of belief in the existence of any deities. Not necessarily it rejects each and every system of the society.

2. God and other religious beliefs are human inventions, created to fulfill various political, psychological and emotional wants or needs.

3. The idea of God implies the abdication of human reason and justice; it is the most decisive negation of human liberty, and necessarily ends in the enslavement of mankind, in theory and practice. On the contrary, Atheism is a gift, an example of a broad unbiased mind. Therefore, it is the duty of atheists to free mankind from such enslavement.

4. Atheism puts humanity as an absolute source - favoring humanity as the absolute source of ethics and values, and permitting individuals to resolve moral problems without resorting to God.

5. Atheism promotes absence of religious motivation - that belief in gods does not motivate moral action, religious action, or any other form of action;

6. Active exclusion of the problem of gods and religion from intellectual pursuit and practical action

atheism was originally meant as a non belief in God. I do not believe it's a religion as some would have it. I'm not against "atheists. they simply don't believe. Period. doesn't make them less of a person or any less smart anymore than it makes me irrational, ignorant, an idiot or stooge because I do believe. some non believers then tell us Christians we name call or think we are better because we believe. kinda the pot callin the kettle black. and that goes both ways people. If you are a true christian then act like it.

Let it rest ok. Nobody is better. what you believe is simply what you believe. Nobody will ever win this argument which shouldn't be an argument at all. There is no purpodse to athiesm unless you make one yourself. It's simply a non belief. I just don't get why some have to be so hateful to each other over "religion", which is different from Christianity, on these forums. You can't force any belief on anybody it's wrong. and it'a equally wrong to judge each other like that.

Here's a scenario that I like to use to explain how I think. Let's say there is a shipwreck and two kids age 6 survive and end up on a deserted island.

They don't know anything about any religion, gods or anything like that. They survive and grow up. The only thing they know is that they are who they are, humans.

They gather food, eat, sleep, play and so on. That's it, that is what life is all about. They never think about any gods or other things like that because they never where exposed to it. Life just "is"!

So that is how I think. You are born, grow up, live life and die. That's it, that's everything. Now if you want to call it any name, go ahead. Or don't call it anything.

It's not a belief, or practice, or any thought. It's just living life in it's pure form, accepting both the good and bad of raw life. Of not making anything up to somehow make life more bearable.

The education of Society (that better?) The fact that society knows by experience that people die. A fact that may or may not be apparent to two children shipwrecked on a deserted island. Do to the lack of experience of other people that these two hypothetical people have.

Atheism, defined most narrowly, is the position that there are no deities. More broadly defined, it is the rejection of belief in the existence of any deities, with or without an assertion that no deities exist. The broadest definition classifies atheism as the absence of belief that any deities exist.

The term atheism originated from the Greek ἄθεος (atheos), meaning "without gods", which was applied with a negative connotation to those thought to reject the gods worshiped by the larger society. With the spread of freethought, skeptical inquiry, and subsequent increase in criticism of religion, application of the term narrowed in scope. The first individuals to identify themselves as "atheist" appeared in the 18th century.

Atheists tend to lean towards skepticism regarding supernatural claims, citing a lack of empirical evidence. Common rationales for not believing in any deity include the problem of evil, the argument from inconsistent revelations, and the argument from nonbelief. Other arguments for atheism range from the philosophical to the social to the historical. Although some atheists tend toward secular philosophies such as humanism, rationalism, and naturalism, there is no one ideology or set of behaviors to which all atheists adhere.

In Western culture, atheists are frequently assumed to be exclusively irreligious or unspiritual. However, religious and spiritual belief systems such as forms of Buddhism that do not advocate belief in gods, have also been described as atheistic.

LOL

I wonder if you actually read what you linked to?

We atheists do not have a set of beliefs. Why do you feel the need to tell untruths Mikel? Is that what god tells you to do into your head?

Now, sweetie pie - we have talked about this before. Using words in ways that bear no relationship to the actual meaning just causes confusion and ill-will. I know that you like to cause ill-will and conflict - like your god told you to, but still........

I suggest you go look those words up and then tell me how any of them apply to not believing there is an invisible super being watching out for us.

Believing that there is no tooth fairy...is still believing.Believing that there is nothing after death is still a belief.Believing that God never existed, is a belief.Believing that leprechauns don't exist, is a belief...

I understand that you are attempting to shift the burden of proof away from yourself, yes.

Not believing you is still not believing you.

Understand sweetie pie? I do not believe you when you tell me there is an invisible super being. I see no evidence for one and your behavior is convincing me you are sadly deluded and very lonely. Further more, my common sense tells me that you are wrong in your assertions - and of course - I cannot prove it does not exist.But that does not mean it does exist.

A lot of lonely people make up imaginary friends. And there is nothing wrong with that - just don't expect me to be able to see Him.

You neglected the words "can be" which are very relevant. A world view can be a belief system, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it is. Incidentally I clicked on religion, and it provided a nice long list. Atheism wasn't on it.

Well you're really reaching. A set of beliefs you live your life according to is a belief system. A system is not a single thing, that would be a unit. My belief unit is that your belief system is mistaken. I don't live my life based on that belief unit, or based on any other single unit of belief. I believe my dog farts, I don't base my life or worldview on it.

Ok you need me to list at least two things that an Atheist believes in order for it to 'qualify' as a system...talk about 'reaching', but ok...

'Atheist's Beliefs' the doctrine(first edition)

1 The Christian God is a psycopath.2 The religious are a threat to society.3 The belief in a God is a danger to society and has been proven to be so over countless generations of constant warfare.4 It cannot be proven to exist therefore it does not exist.5 Religious belief in a God is a form of indoctrination and mind control.

True, and many christians do recognize the problems their more vocal christian brethren create.

However, these soft-line christians do tend to provide cover for their hard-line brethren. Out of respect and tolerance for the soft-liners, we tend to tip-toe around the subject, letting the hard-liners get their way in society.

My position is that is has to stop. The religion of the soft-liners is no more reasonable than that of the hard-liners. Most soft-liners have no idea what is going on. It would only benefit society if they had to wake up and face reality.

But they may also come to understand how they fit in with their environment and learn to respect it. They will also - most likely - come to the conclusion that they will also die - seeing as everything else dies in their environment and they will probably be injured and notice they are growing older.

Except for that anthropology and sociology would suspect that your innocent six year olds would eventually make up a god, to explain why the trees bore fruit in the spring, or why the fish came up the stream at a certain time of the year, or why the storms came and wrecked their treehouse.

All the same I like your post. Pure life. With all the knowledge we do possess in today's world, you would think we could put away our make-believe, and maintain a wonder and a thirst for that which we do not yet know, instead of letting it waste away on imaginary gods.

That was rather funny. Totally convinced me that they all want to be be a martyr. Passive aggresive attacks until some one cracks and then they are happy. Especially as it was "tell me where I am provoking this" and then start arguing when I did.

TOLERANCE of my irrational bleiefs - that is all I ask. I will then completely invalidate anything you say by playing the "esoteric knowledge" card.

No, you weren't arguing with me at all, nor I with you really. It's just that I don't have much of a problem with someone putting a face of their God, my problem is when they put their own face on their God, so to speak!

The fact of the matter is that I am perfectly okay arguing either side of the coin. Having a God or not having a God will not change the way I choose to behave. LOL.

I've got mountains of proof! I'm convinced you're the one who says it's all fantasy. So c'mon darling lets see what you got!

That goes for any non-beliver put up your proof or adimt you're wrong on all levels and we'll help you find the answers you can't find for yourself. It's easy, put your foolish pride aside and recieve the blessings you deserve.

It is irrelevant if someone is identified as an atheist or not. You need no belief system to recognise that an invisible, horrible entity does not exist any more than the sun god it all started with did.Sanity is not exclusive to atheists, anyone can not believe in the tooth fairy.

I understand that you try to be civil, the problem is that what religionists believe is offensive to me, my family and friends.Who among non believers has a theory that involves death and torture for not believing it? Non believe is just that. I do not believe that you, or your god have any say in my life at all, and I deny your perceived "religious right" to have your god tell me or my precious little ones that they will rot in hell for not swallowing what amounts to retold bits of bronze age information that is psychotic, incomplete and totally unproven! Nothing personal.

Errm.... Lenin, Stalin, Ceucescu, Hoxha, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, need I go on? They didn't have just a "theory." They enacted torture and death for people who didn't believe as they did, and all were hardline, militant atheists.

Now I believe that if God had no say in your life, you wouldn't even exist.

And where, pray tell, have I said you would rot in Hell? I agree that it's not really for me or even for God to say. But that's because I believe Hell is entirely self-imposed, and nobody goes to Heaven against their will.

Atheism?Hmmmm, lets see, atheism is to deny the exisence of god/s.What is this 'god" thing? The dictionary only offers "opinions" in ref to a definition.If this god thing cannot be factually defined and is only, conceived in terms of opinion and exists as an abstract concept which is imagined to be, metaphysically, a supernatural entity (divinity) which cannot be known and is incorporeal, what is there to deny?If there is nothing to "deny" how can "atheism" exist?The only thing that can be denied is the "abstract concept:"..god.I can consider the "concept:" atheist.

True and admitted many times, there is no proof either way therefore it comes down to faith, and belief either way.

Again NO Lack of proof does nothing at all, it neither proves nor dis-proves anything to prove or dis-prove something PROOF IS REQUIRED.

I understand your fallacy and the delusional thinking that leads you to this silly question.

Incorrect, it most certainly is a religion.

A lack of belief is a Belief a belief in the negative.

YET...

The lack of belief IS a belief

Believed by many people, which makes it both a belief system, and a religion. A simple unit of belief would be true if it were only believed by a single unit(person) which clearly it is not, it is believed by many.

So you're saying there's a 50/50 chance that Santa exists? The Easter Bunny? People believe in both those entities although there's never been a confirmed sighting of either.

What is your definition of the word "belief"? You seem so determined that atheists must "believe" something, so maybe we're misunderstanding what you mean by that word.

Atheists are not interested in proving God does not exist. As I said, most atheists would change their mind in a second if you could provide incontrovertible proof. Atheists just see no reason to incorporate the views of a hypothetical being into their world view.

Atheism is often called a belief, usually by religious people, but that is technically incorrect, since Atheism works on science and fact.

I have just rambled on about this in a different post, but to both religious and non-religious people I would strongly suggest that you read 'The God Delusion'. It covers pretty much all aspects of the religious argument, and explains why God does not exist, and debunks most of the usual religious arguments.

It doesn't bring much new to the table, but it does compile a lot of previous research regarding God all in to one well constructed book.

It even brings the research on prayer in to the limelight (It uses the statistical normal result of a combination of experiments for fairness, which was a study on heart surgery patients, which concluded that prayer makes no difference if the patient doesn't know, however if the patient knew people were praying for them, then it can heighten the chance of complications by around 40%, this is generally put down to either stress or performance anxiety. There have been a number of similar tests which have alll showed the same thing.

While I know most religious people rarely include science in to their belief, I think this books would be a good read for anyone who wants to know more about the atheist/theist debate.

They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)See any choice here? ... or should I quote another 30 or so such statements just to be sure?

You said it! Besides, he sacrificed his son to save us. I always wondered why this means anything at all. He just brought him right back didn't he? If he had left him dead I could agree he actually gave up something for us.

It's simple enough. If you weigh 400 kilos and tell me you just won an olympic sprint, I'm gonna doubt you... a lot. Tell me a never seen divine entity controls me and can do everything yet does do nothing, and I'm not just gonna doubt you, I'm gonna laugh in your face!

I just don't recall Jesus telling the old man he was a liar or denying what god was supposed to have said in the OT. I do not put as much emphasis on when god said all those hateful things, but that any god would say them at any time is illogical. Why would an omniscient god be neurotic? that makes no sense at all to me

See what I mean about the covert abuse? He tried the "Thanks for playing" on me, Mark Knowles and others who oppose his view. We know what you mean by that OK Mikel? It is rude arrogant and dismissive. If you can't discuss with others in a civil way, you will not learn any more than you know now. WOW that is scary!!!

Belief is lack of reason or fact, atheism is reason and fact without belief.

Religious people do sometimes annoy atheists in the same way that you would feel uncomfortable around a 30 year old who gets excited because Santa Claus is coming, or his almighty god the Spaghetti Monster told him to refrain from peanuts on Wednesdays.

Religion has no rationality, it has been repeatedly dis-proven, but those who are religious fail to accept the scientific facts and reason simply because of belief.

Repeatedly dis-proven? Come on. what is that meant to mean? Perhaps you mean that certain beliefs held by certain religious groups have been shown to be scientifically false, eg the Sun clearly does not circle the Earth as was held to be true by Christians for a long while (on the basis of assertion by Greek philosophers).

It's man-made, written, created, imagined.It's man-perpetuated or purported for power and wealth.It's man-ineptitude to understand life.It's man-ill conceived notion of chaos otherwise.It's man-ideological system for control over the masses.It's man-attempt to give answers to life on limited knowledge.

Religion is completely controlled, monitor and used to maintain a certain level of morality within Humanity, the whole of Civilization.

However, as you can see by looking at Humanity as a whole. It is obviously working only for those who know the truth about it. Those people continue to perpetuate the hoax, knowing it's not truth about life.

Those who don't know this are the sheep who follow because they honestly don't know any better. Most of humanity has literally been brain-washed by contradiction. That is evident in the hypocritical action of many. Those who use religion, so as to gain off the efforts of others? These people are out-right damaging humanity's chances to move forward.

Plain and simple.

There is no truth is religion. It's basis is a false notion. It may have been needed, when found by accident, centuries ago. However, it's time to grow up, put mystical inclinations aside and find a way forward that is beneficial for everyone within civilization of humanity.

I can see why you say that and I can also see that you cannot even figure out what's best for yourself?

Groups? Labels, you just love them don't you.

Trust, religion is NOT an answer to anything. The only reason it's lasted this long, is because people refuse to accept responsibility for every aspect of their life. They refuse to because they cannot grasp life.

When they think about it, they simply cannot wrap their mind around it and rather not think about it.

There are too many people acting in this manner. Also, It might be good if you looked at things from an individual perspective, because every time that you try to view things on a world-wide view, you cannot wrap your mind around it or even understand it.

By your own words- you admit you cannot understand life. So, please. You keep trying to justify your belief in the "GOD" concept, when you actually have no ground to stand on.

It's always a pleasure to see you Valerie and I really wish you would stop running yourself around in circles.

Pandoras Box"Atheism isn't a set of beliefs; therefore it is not a religion."

- It may not be a religion but a set of believes can be easily assigned to it:

"All children are born Atheists; they have no idea of God."-Baron d'Holbach

1. Atheism is the position which claims that there are no deities. it is the rejection of belief in the existence of any deities. Not necessarily it rejects each and every system of the society.

2. God and other religious beliefs are human inventions, created to fulfill various political, psychological and emotional wants or needs.

3. The idea of God implies the abdication of human reason and justice; it is the most decisive negation of human liberty, and necessarily ends in the enslavement of mankind, in theory and practice. On the contrary, Atheism is a gift, an example of a broad unbiased mind. Therefore, it is the duty of atheists to free mankind from such enslavement.

4. Atheism puts humanity as an absolute source - favoring humanity as the absolute source of ethics and values, and permitting individuals to resolve moral problems without resorting to God.

5. Atheism promotes absence of religious motivation - that belief in gods does not motivate moral action, religious action, or any other form of action;

6. Active exclusion of the problem of gods and religion from intellectual pursuit and practical action;

I am extremely sorry if you find my last comment offending. It is not my intention to fight with sub-standards, neither to hurt them... You r smart Mark, I really mean it... But what shocks me most is that the most so-called atheists here don't even understand the concept of atheism, just brags being one & argues about it with other catholic garbages.

Ah - Now I understand. Just another religionist come to have a fight. Very well done sweetie pie. I am sure god/muhamed/jeebus/whatever will be very pleased that you insulted an atheist today. Does that mean you get to go to special heaven?

You might want to be careful though. People tend to "assume" that you are uneducated if you cannot write sentences properly.

So - why is LOL "Catholic garbages" LOL any different to your garbages.?

Duh, do you understand what i posted ? My point was about levels. There are no levels in atheism. Superior or inferior labeling is just for your personal satisfaction and i have no problem with that. You can carry on with that anger.

Could just be a troll - that is true. Ussually some one who claims to be an atheist, attacks me and starts spouting the rules and levels of atheism tends to be a religionist sock puppet, but I am open to the troll idea...

I am really sorry about that Cags, I am new here and I didnt knw ur the Pamela Anderson of hubpages... but wat kind of creepy wierdo calls himself a business in his bio...u should b delighted dat I at least gave u the status of a talking software...hahahha "A Free Advice Giving Business'' ... ... but you were right about one thing, no one is ever going to pay you for your advice anyway

Hmmmm......? Interesting that you bring that up. I see, you are not only not too bright, but very misunderstood too?

What is with you? So far, you've tried everything you can to discredit Mark, which isn't going to happen, but your attempt was a good try.

Battling with me, because Mark made you look like a fool, is only going to made a fool of again. So, this tact isn't in your best interest and most likely isn't going gain you any ground.

You argue from a defensive position and you cannot even attempt to gain any advantage from that position. You may play on words, in your attempt, but that will be obvious, in your next attempt to argue with me.

Anyways, what do you mean purpose of aetheism? I suppose being-true to ones beliefs is a purpose, but I don't think "Atheism" is anything like religion in terms of purpose. Religion's purpose is to govern the people with laws that make societal living possible. It has since been outdated with the governments all over the world, but its hard to oust an old government, especially one as expansive as religion.

Richard Dawkins is not a superior Atheist, he is a superior intellect in the subject. just because he has studied atheism, theism, and everything in between, does not change the fact that neither Richard or Mark have any belief in god.

It serves a purpose??? That news. Its no different that vegetarians trying to get the rest of us to quit eating meat, or environmentalist trying to get us to believe in global warming. Just another group that wants everybody else to believe the way they do.

You're absolutely right on all counts. By the way, check out the avatar. I'm a guy, not a sweetie and I don't remember asking you to buy anything. I don't believe you state the purpose atheism serves either.

No purpose, sweetie pie. Like I said - we just refuse to buy your invisible sky fairy, and I personally find it massively funny that you will accept that with no evidence and whine about climate change not being the way He decided to wipe us off the planet.

I'll just assume you all are liberal democrats that supported the Messiah Obama. when you can't backup your belief or agenda, religious or otherwise, use name calling. True to form as always. Enjoy hell guys!

Texan sweetie thinks I need to kill some klan members or I approve of them. An no - pretty much the only time I get told to "man up" is on anonymous internet forums by people 6,000 miles away.

Sneako sweetie pie thinks the opposite of "christian" is "liberal democrat". Which coinfirms my belief that christianity is actually a political party and the god nonsense is just a front.

Valerie sweetie pie does not see the irony in her remarks when she tells people that not believing in a god is warped, but gets very, very upset when some one takes the opposite position and is unable to see which one came first.

@Don - I think you may have missed my point. Which is that - being against an ideology on principal - in this case religion - is not bigoted if there are good reasons to be against it.

I agree that there is no god and theism is merely an opinion. But - it is an opinion backed by an invisible super being that cannot, by definition, be wrong. Therefore - no compromise is possible and I think it is evil. Just like Nazism.

Being against something on a matter of principle doesn't make someone immune from the status of bigot. It's the form the "being against" takes which constitutes bigotry.

Bigotry is intolerance of the opinions of others, particularly opinions relating to race, religion and politics. It often takes the form of obstinate, irrational animosity.

If any of mine or your comments fall into that category then they are, by definition, bigoted. If they don't, then they aren't.

There's no point saying I've got "good reason" to be a bigot therefore I'm not really a bigot. Every bigot believes he has good reason to be a bigot. Indeed that seems to be a characteristic of bigotry. All bigots believe their bigotry is justified.

You can decide for yourself whether any of your comments fit the definition of bigotry, just as I can mine. But be aware that "good reason" is a red herring. As you know, almost anything can be rationalised by saying it's for "good reason", including bigotry.

Incidentally, by asserting that "no compromise ... is evil", you are backing yourself into a corner. Your argument is:

No compromise is evilTheism is a position of no compromiseTherefore theism is evil

However, if you are not willing to compromise on the argument above then it is (by it's own definition) evil, and we can discount it as such.

If you are willing to compromise on it, then one or all the premises must be changed, e.g. “theism is not a position of no compromise” or “no compromise is not evil” If one or both these changes are made, then the conclusion is falsified.

In a nutshell, if the first premise is true, then we can discount it on the grounds that the premise is, itself, evil.

Ah. No - it is not evil because no compromise is possible. It is evil and no compromise is possible.

The bible is clear on what is required. The end time must come and it must be destroyed completely. The religionists prefer to misinterpret this to mean the entire world. It does not mean that - it means religion.

But - what do you suggest instead? I have genuinely spent 30 years attempting a compromise and one is not possible. The best you can squeeze from a religionist is grudging "tolerance," and an admission that because of "free will," some people will choose to deny the one true god and they will pay for that - and in the mean time we want to force your children to read the bible in school. 2,000 years of fighting against this and attempting a compromise - you have seen the results.

Can any person deny that the New Testament that we read and study is not the product of compromise that was created at the council of Nicaea in 326 AD. It would be logical to assume that there were some unscrupulous people attending this meeting; and voting. Kinda like the way things work at the US senate.

If by compromise you mean ensuring people’s behaviour doesn’t adversely affect those who don’t have the same beliefs, then I understand and I absolutely agree.

A theist is not entitled to behave in a way that adversely affects those who don’t share the same world view. But likewise an atheist or anti-theist is not entitled to behave in a way that adversely affects someone who doesn’t share their world view.

So “compromise” in this context is not about policing people’s thoughts. It's about people balancing their attempt to live according to private, personal beliefs and values while ensuring the behaviour that stems from those beliefs and values don’t adversely affect those who don’t share them.

Ensuring group decision making (politics) balances the private, personal beliefs and values of groups and their representatives with the public, commonly agreed values of a society seems the best way to do this.

The key is deciding what those public, commonly agreed values are. That requires meaningful discourse. But discourse is usually only meaningful when started from a position of mutual respect. Religious intolerance on the one hand and anti-theism on the other are not positions of mutual respect but rather hatred and distrust.

So what compromise would I start with? Theists and anti-theists starting from the position of “I accept your right to believe what you believe”. That's something to build on.

Currently to non theists it looks like religious intolerance is the starting point of theism. And to theists it looks like the starting point of non theism is “I hate what you believe, and I will offend, ridicule and demean what you believe at every given opportunity”. Neither is conducive to meaningful discourse. So that's where I'd start.

Preventing religious extremism is I think a worthwhile goal, but trying to achieve that goal by being anti-religion, or even anti-theist seems silly. It's like trying to prevent political extremism by being anti-politics. All it does is create another "them" for "us" to hate, thus continuing the hate cycle.

Compromise doesn't mean people changing their beliefs to something we find more palatable. Short of thought control, that can never be achieved. Compromise as I see it is about people balancing their behaviour.

While I would agree with much of what you have to say in regards to compromise, the problem starts where the parties are supposed to agree that they respect each others right to believe.

Religious beliefs do not agree with anyone or anything that doesn't conform to the belief system. Non-believers are to die horribly and suffer for an eternity for their non-acceptance of those beliefs. As a result, an "Us vs. Them" scenario has already been established without either party having said a word to each other.

Well - you have not actually answered my question and seem to have totally missed the point.

If you genuinely think you have the perfect word of god in your bible, the best you can say - and I have been told this many times is "God gave you free will to deny his existence, and you will pay for this with eternal torment."

How do you compromise with this? This person feels it is acceptable behavior to guilt young girls into not having an abortion and posting photos of dead babies and it is OK to try and make a few dollars selling Amazon and ebay rubbish off of this.

Now - I am well aware that no one has the perfect word of god and it will always say exactly what that person already believes. But - they are blinded to this. The very fact that the religionists cannot agree what the perfect word of god says is enough to persuade me there ain't any such thing.

I keep being told (by the religionists) to be more tolerant of their beliefs and the only reason they say the things they say like Valerie who thinks that not believing in god is warped - is because I make fun of their beliefs. They are quite prepared to ignore the fact that they have been saying these things for thousands of years and the bible tells me I am "warped," - never happened. Just a reaction to the "persecution" they are facing because they love Jesus.

All you have really said is that you would like it if one side stopped ridiculing the other and "compromised."

Taking one side away from the argument is not compromising.

So once again I ask you how you can come to a compromise with some one who has been told by god to go forth and spread the word?

I have tried being rational. But I have discovered that it is not possible to have a rational conversation with some one who thinks they are speaking for god.

I am open to compromise and I genuinely do not care one whit what some one else believes. Until they feel the need to tell me about it. Until they feel the need to build churches to the invisible super being and have traffic stopped so they can get in an out of their edifice to god.

Until the Arch Bishop of Canterbury goes on national television and lectures me about the ills of secular greed and then his church loses forty million pounds in a real estate deal in New York that involved illegally evicting rent controlled tenants from their homes to build luxury condos. http://internationalpropertyinvestment. … goes-south

How do you compromise with the perfect word of god? By definition - it is perfect and if history can teach us anything about religion it is that there ain't no compromise when it comes to this.

Clearly we're not going to solve the problem right here on this forum, but I think the general point yourself, earnestshub and Beelzedad are making is one that definitely needs to be addressed by theists.

Where do you go from here? How do non theists and theists live true to their world views, in a way that doesn't adversely affect those who don't share their world views?

I can say straight away that just asking the question is a positive step and is more fruitful than the trying to threaten, shock, and scare on the one hand or diminish, belittle and demean on the other.

To start I think we really need to identify what the issue is. For many non theists, theism as a belief system is the issue. But is what people believe really the issue? Or is it how people behave? If someone's behaviour is not harmful, do we care what they believe?

I guess we do if that belief leads to harmful behaviour. But tolerance of belief doesn't mean acceptance of harmful behaviour. Behaviour and belief are different. They may be linked, but it's only behaviour that affects other people's lives. So I think any compromise needs to be related to people's behaviour, not their belief.

So the compromise from non theists is not about accepting harmful behaviour. It's about respecting people's right to believe what they will. Not advocating the eradication of theism as a belief system is an example of such compromise.

But of course that needs to balanced with a compromise on the part of some theists. That compromise is behaving in a way that considers public, commonly held values, as well as private, personal ones. Not murdering a doctor who performs abortion procedures is an example of such compromise (based on a real incident).

Interestingly only a religious extremist would have difficulty with this. Likewise only an anti-theist would have difficulty with it. So effectively such compromise addresses the extremities on both sides.

Very idealistic, but how could this be made to work in the real world, with people who are entrenched in their own world views? I honestly don't know. But I was asked how I think theists and non-theists could compromise and vice versa. I think this is one way.

Perhaps an organisation of theists and non theists conveying a simple message with the backing of as many major theistic and non theistic congregations, groups, societies, associations as possible? A collective effort from individuals who don't share the same beliefs, but do share each other's willingness and desire to live in peace? A United Nations joint committee to investigate, report and make recommendations on religious/ secular integration? I don't know.

I do know that not every theist is an extremist, just as not every non theist is an anti-theist. That's something to build on. Even "gods perfect word" can be interpreted in a way that is consistent with one of the major religions, Christianity. According to that religion's sacred text, even god told people to give what is ceasar's to ceasar (pay their taxes), i.e. to have some regard for common laws and values in society. Again, something to build on? Don't know.

The main point is we don't all have to agree with each other. We do however have to find a way of living with each other. It's either that or just annihilate each other, which is the logical conclusion of theistic religious intolerance and non theistic anti-theist sentiment. Because people tend not to stop believing something just because you tell them to. So if anti-theists are serious about eradicating theism it will require more than words.

Regardless of how difficult it may be, or how many false starts or mistakes (or long forum posts) are made along the way, surely the former is a better alternative than the latter.

But - once again you have dodged the question and offered up some platitudes.

I have read the bible. There is no room for compromise. None. It clearly instructs believers to go out and spread the Word, and the Word is - sadly - able to be interpreted to mean almost anything. And when you have an absolute belief that is interpreted to be the word of a god...

Read any history book.

So - for 2,000 years the Christian religion has been spread by hook or by crook and we are expected to compromise with something that offers no compromise.

Do you think you could get a few churches torn down? persuade the Pope to stop saying that condoms are bad for preventing the spread of AIDS?

Get them to give their vast wealth to the poor?

I personally do not see a way of living with religionists that does not involve them slowly crushing all opposition. Or are you prepared to ignore the last 2,000 years?

Are you suggesting the best way to prevent religious extremism is to eradicate theism? To eradicate theistic belief, or some other suggestion? Either way what do you propose?

The ideas I suggested are nowhere near a perfect solution. I honestly don't know the answer. But please explain where you think anti-theism can go from here. When the ridiculing and demeaning of those who hold certain beliefs fails to eradicate that belief (which it will) what's the next step?

You mentioned getting a "few churches torn down". Is tearing down churches and mosques and temples the next step? What about when people gather to worship in their homes or gather in public places to worship? Bulldozers? Tear gas?

What about theistic texts such as the Bible, the Koran? Prevent people owning them, prevent people reading them? Teach kids god does not exist? What happens when some kids still develop theistic belief and join underground groups to gather and express their beliefs? Lock them up? Place them in a lunatic asylum? All for the sake of believing something you don't think they should?

You say look at 2000 years of history. Well theists have been crucified, mauled by wild animals, tortured, shot, "re-educated", you name it. Yet theism in all its forms is still here. Such belief is stronger than anything you can do to the individuals who hold it. History shows you simply can't force people to not believe something, any more than you can force people them to believe something. So I ask you Mark and any other anti-theist on the forum, where does anti theism go when name calling doesn't work?

Education will make a laughing stock of all religion, fairy belief is like that. In the past we just accepted that the death threats from the fairy were OK, everyone had some threat that would work on the bone ignorant. Now people are learning that all the science they poor crap on is doing a better job at understanding why people need a fairy. It will all come out in the wash soon.

Nah. Revelation says you'll all end up worshiping the antichrist because he can do magic tricks with statues and stuff. No use saying "Excuse me your evilness with your nice red pointy tail, but I don't believe in you, because I'm an athiest". I think he then chops your head off.

Once again - you are assuming that it will not work. How do you know it will not work? My intention is to get the undecideds asking questions and looking into things.

But - I will be watching your question for the theists closely. I do not see a lot of them admitting that a non believer could be right just yet. As I explained - that would reduce the word of god to an opinion.......

This is the problem with the 100% perfect word of God - it is non negotiable.

If bigotry was the intolerance of any opinions other than ones own, there wouldn't be a case for religion, as there are no religious opinions, only scriptures, which is an ultimate truth. There is no bigotry there.

Religion, on the other hand, is an ideology that teaches its followers to be intolerant of others opinions of their scriptures. Their truth is their absolute truth and nothing will change that. Those who don't agree will be sent to a lake of fire.

I suppose the question should be then is whether or not the intolerant teachings of an absolute ideology should be tolerated.

The most common religions are theistic. Theism is the belief in the existence of a deity. Such belief is merely an opinion as oppoased to a proven fact. So theism itself is based on opinion. The way this opinion (or any opinion) is disagreed with is what can constitute bigotry.

Also theism is not an ideology, it is a world view. The former is less all encompassing than the latter which determines not only what one believes, but also one's entire approach to truth and knowledge.

As for the idea of fighting intolerance with more intolerance. Personally I find it as absurd as the idea of fighting a war to end war. What a silly world we live in.

Theism is a Weltanschauung (German literal translation: "world view"). It is an all encompassing set of assumptions/propositions relating to everything. The main proposition is that a deity exists, which forms the basis of an approach to truth and knowledge, theories of existence, theories of the nature of everything including oneself etc.

Theocracy is a form of government, a political ideology. It is the application of a theistic world view, specifically relating to the process of group decision making, i.e. politics.

Theocracy constitutes a political ideology. Theism does not. The latter, being much wider in scope than the former, constitutes a world-view.

I'm not sure what 'wide in scope' has to do with the fact that theism is an ideology? Ideologies can be wide in scope, too.

I'm also sure I didn't say anything about ant-theism, either.

If an intolerant ideology like theism or religion or whatever you wish to call it is considered bigotry, then so is the intolerance of the KKK, Nazism and hate speech. We should be tolerant of their beliefs if we don't want to be labeled as bigots ourselves, correct?

exactly... Atheism IS NOT a religion. it is a statement of disbelief. most atheists i know don't think too much about it except when confronted by people in religious faiths who cannot understand that they do not believe in a god and who try to "save" them. if religionists would leave atheists alone, they would find the same courtesy returned by atheists i am sure. i have never had an atheist try to make me disbelieve in the Hamsterhood of the Plaid Lodge but i have had plenty of other competing religionists try to convert me. you'll never see an atheist going door to door trying to get followers. the only proseletyzing they do is from a position having been forced into it by religionists who cannot accept a lack of belief in a divine principle. the problem is not with the atheists, it's with the religionists. by the way, i may be knocking on YOUR door soon trying to get you to join the Hamsterhood of the Plaid Lodge. us hamsters get around.

i am not an atheist... i believe in a divine principle... my divine principle tends to be on the silly side as i am a big monty python fan. now if john cleese were to knock at my door or michael palin, i would convert from the Hamsterhood of the Plaid Lodge immediately but most religions are far too serious for my taste and i like to play.

Atheism only means the lack of a belief in God. Why is it so hard for Christians to realize that we dismiss their religion for the same reasons that they dismiss all other religions? It doesn't make us horrible people,...

Before I go into this discussion, we all need to understand that I am not a scientist, I am not a prophet, and I am not an expert on the topic. I am merely trying to offer my belief in how atheism occurs. And why some...

I have talked to many atheists and some say that atheists are people who do not believe in the concept of God. But in the past people said that atheists were people who believed that there was "no God". What...

I was about to reply to rickylidea's forum "How Did You Become an Atheist?" when it dawned on me that I might not qualify as a bona fide atheist. Some of you may remember from my previous hubs that I...

.......in terms of behaviours and activities?I've just read a hub by someone talking about the old Chestnut that not all who call themselves Christian are going to heaven citing Jesus "Not all who cry Lord will...